I think that Wall Street is corrupt and too powerful as well, but those protesters are fucking annoying. I'm all for holding the system accountable, but if I was a cop and some beardo hipster d-bag kept sticking a camera in my face questioning how I was doing my job, I might knock him on his ass too. And how sad is that kid? He should be home playing with Lego, not spending his Saturday regurgitating Dad's rants to television cameras.

Hmm short memories, these are the same police that vowed to risk their lives for the scumbags taunting them from the sidewalk. These cops probably knew someone that died in the world trade center. The cops have got nothing to do with the banks these guy are protesting, its their job to keep the street safe, I would like to see what the cop that was video recording caught on his camera, these guys seem to always miss what ever action prompted the arrests, cops don't just grab a protestor and throw them to the ground and haul them away for peaceful protesting.

The cops of course are only doing thier jobs which is to uphold the law. It's ironic that the leftist protestors who normally support workers' rights wouldn't cooperate with police who of course are public sector workers. Odd.

It sounds like demonstrators blocked a street without permission, so the police used force to clear the street.

Police say about 80 protesters were arrested on Saturday, and most were taken into custody for illegally blocking traffic as they marched up to Union Square. Authorities said that the marchers did not have a permit.

"You certainly cannot take over a New York City street. That is a serious situation. We have emergency vehicles to get through, people have actually jobs to get to, unlike these protestors, apparently," said Vallone. "And the police have every right to use the force that they deem necessary to arrest if people aren't cooperating."

And in other news:

New York City Police Department avoided comment on its alleged use of pepper spray while containing yesterday's crowds.

Video of a police officer spraying demonstrators on Saturday was posted on YouTube, and protestors have complained that police used excessive force.

By Sunday evening, the NYPD had not yet commented on the video, but news of the wave of arrests sparked a debate over free speech.

The alleged spray of something from someone is visible at the 21-second mark.

The point is unlike what WSPD corporate slackers Fred & oldhometown have said no one has been punished for the debacle of the economic collapse of 2008 and its continuation of fearless above the law oligarchs. Wall Street caused this calamity yet where is the justice? This is the outrage that has spread from Europe to America. Allowing wealthy Wall Street to lobby our government for their interests over whats best for the country as a whole is wrong and dangerous.

posted by wolfman
on Sep 26, 2011
at 12:30:42 am
#
2 people liked this

Hey "wolfman"

I don't work for Clear Channel and/or WSPD. Never have worked for WSPD. When I worked for Clear Channel, it was in a market (St. Louis) where CC does not have a talker...so I guess if you lived there, you'd be bitching about CBS Radio (KMOX).

Allowing wealthy Wall Street to lobby our government for their interests over whats best for the country as a whole is wrong and dangerous.

But union lobbying for policies that break the budget and cripple businesses is A-OK? Hypocrite...

State law allowed Gannon to retire from the city in 2004, the year he turned 50; since then, he has received about $1 million from his city pension. He stands to collect approximately $5 million during his lifetime, according to an analysis based on the fund's actuarial assumptions.

Retired at 50, will eventually collect at least $3-5 million. All perfectly legal, but this is the union, not Wall Street? $158,000 a year out of taxes that could pay for schools, the children, and the poorest. Where's the "outrage", my lackey friend? Where is the union demanding this "fat cat" stop raping the common man? Where are they? Where?

And quit "liking" your own posts as soon as you post them. It's pathetic.

BTW, here's how your precious "union" works for the "little people"--HA!: One-Day Rehiring Nets Former Chicago Labor Leader a $158,000 City Pension.

That's pretty egregious, but buried at the end of the story, was this little nugget:

"Although he was leaving city service, Gannon moved to take advantage of the law that allowed him to stay in the municipal pension fund. In April 1991, records show, Gannon had Local 150's business manager write a letter on his behalf making that request.

Only a few months earlier, on his last day in office, Gov. Jim Thompson had signed into law the pension code changes that would allow Gannon's city pension to be based on his salary as a union official."

Former Governor Thompson was a Republican. So let's not pretend that corruption doesn't run through both parties.

So let's not pretend that corruption doesn't run through both parties.

Who said that it doesn't? My point was that there's all this bullshit floating around about unions being for the little people when it is so blatantly obvious that they are not. Marching and protesting the "fat cats" etc. on Wall Street, but ignoring their own "fat cats", who presumably are living the high life on member (forced to pay) dues. It is a political organization, not a "social movement"...and it looks like they are lurching towards becoming a political party if the Dems don't toe the line better (note the "pullback" of money towards political candidates in 2012).

Ace--it is worth noting that Thompson was also a Chicago born-n-bred politician and a real piece of shit. I may be conservative, vote Republican often, but his "style" reeks of the "Chicago-way" and is repulsive. I would not go down defending this asshole in any way:

On November 12, 1980, Thompson, by his executive order, instituted a hiring freeze for all state agencies, boards, bureaus, and commissions under his control as governor. The order affected approximately 60,000 state positions. These positions could only be filled if the candidates were first approved by an office created by Thompson, the Governor's Office of Personnel. The practice essentially consisted of denying the hiring of persons not affiliated with the Republican Party by conducting inquiries into past Republican Party affiliation and possible future pledges of loyalty. Suit was brought and the Supreme Court held this political patronage practice unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment rights of low-level public employees inRutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62.

Hedges was particularly impressed by the significance of Saturday’s mass arrests on the part of the New York Police Department. He told the interviewer, “The real people who are scared are the power elite. Of course, they’re trying to make you scared and us scared. But I can tell you, having been a reporter for the New York Times, that on the inside they’re very, very frightened. They do not want movements like this to grow, and they understand on some level — whether it’s subconscious or, in other cases, even overt — that the criminal class in this country has seized power.”

Hedges went on to say that the protesters should be seen as “conservatives” because “they call for the restoration of the rule of law.”

“The real radicals have seized power,” he asserted, “and they are decimating all impediments to the creation of a neo-feudalistic corporate state, one in which there is a rapacious oligarchic class, a thin managerial elite, and two-thirds of this country live in conditions that increasingly push families to subsistence level.”

According to Hedges, the corporate state wants to “reduce the working class to a status equivalent to serfdom. … They want us to remain passive and to remain frightened. And as long as we remain passive and frightened, entranced with their electronic hallucinations, we are not a threat.”

“The moment people come out and do this [kind of protest],” Hedges concluded, “the corporate state is terrified — and if you doubt me, look around you at the huge numbers of cops, and not only that but the kind of brutality the cops have visited on peaceful protesters.”

According to O'Donnell the police are troublemakers and used brutality. He does realize doesn't he that they are hard working, blue collar, middle class Americans? Part of the union which created the middle class which these kids are now part of.

I don't see it as a left/vs/right thing. But it is funny some of the same right-wingers behind fucking over public-employees or hating on cops for messing with their gun rights are quick to jump on their side in instances like this. I'm tired of the right/vs/left thing... I'm just posting these things because it's totally messed up when you watch these videos.

And no, Linecrosser, I was actually focusing on the sweet little old man playing chess. Wonder what happened to him when the cop pulled the barrier further.

Yep Jr and yet most news organizations have not even reported on this including the Toledo Blade. Most of these people are not anarchists or hippies but average Americans many without jobs. Oh by the way Michael Moore gave a speech at the protest today.

We need flyers, handbills, and icons for our web presence. If you can create something for us to distribute online, please post it our wall. If you can help with flyers and handbills, please come to our planning committee meeting tomorrow.

Well, that didn't take long. The Occupy Wall Street crowd has already displayed some forceful anti-semitism. And unlike, for instance, the claim that Tea Partiers shouted racial slurs at black Democratic members of Congress, the anti-semitism is on video.

One blogger with LiveLeak.com ("redefining the media," that lot) took a shot atJournalist & Jew Natalie Rothschildbecause she wrote an item on what she calledMonty Python's Occupy Wall Streetthat pointed out the absurd aspects of the protest - sorry, "revolution;" they're revolutionaries down there. Rothschild noted in an ensuing Huffington Post piece that she's received "a string of indignant emails and tweets about my [supposed] Jewish, kleptocrat banking connections . . . Unfortunately, though, I have no wealthy backers," Rothschild wrote.

They have commandeered a public park, shut down the Brooklyn Bridge, and disrupted counted small businesses, but the Democratic Party establishment appears to be steadily moving toward embracing Occupy Wall Street anyway.

The labor movement, including the SEIU and Transportation Workers Union, have been aiding the protesters in Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhatan for some time. Now the Communications Workers of America, the Amalgamated Transit Union, and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees are doing the same.

And where Big Labor goes, Democratic office holders can’t be far behind. Yesterday, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the largest Democratic caucus in the United States Congress, officially endorsed the Occupy Wall Street movement.

I'm holding back my comments until I actually attend the rally on the 10th but the love for Obama coming off of this group makes me really wonder if they want a 3rd party/new solution or if it's just the DNC masking their current policies.

8.30pm: The situation at the Wall Street protest is becoming increasingly tense. There's a flashpoint on the intersection of Broadway and Cedar Street, with reports of a number of arrests. Police have deployed orange netting to contain protesters. Subway trains have been ordered not to stop at Wall Street station.

8.37pm: Police on horseback have moved in and barricades have been deployed on Wall Street proper, according to Salon writer Justin Elliot on the scene. He tweets this picture from Broadway and Cedar, where police are preventing people from crossing the street, and another that shows tensions between police and protesters there.

9.10pm: This video, uploaded to YouTube by the citizen journalism website wearechange.org, shows scuffles breaking out between police and protesters. The location isn't identified, but it's clearly one of the intersections at the south end of Broadway. It shows officers drawing their nightsticks, beating some protesters and making a number of arrests. There are also dark-suited officers in plain clothes who appear to be directing the action. Towards the end of the video, a protester claims to have been pepper-sprayed. I've seen a number of reports of pepper sprayings, but I've not had a reliable first-hand account yet.

10.49pm: More video footage has emerged of a Broadway flashpoint, showing a white-shirted senior officer beating back protesters with his baton. Many protesters are asking why the actions of the police seem to lead to confrontational situations, which the organisers of the Occupy Wall Street movement are so desperate to avoid.

11.00pm: Another big day for the Occupy Wall Street protesters is drawing to a close. Thousands of protesters – with conservative estimates putting the number at around 15,000 – marched through Lower Manhattan, bringing the area to a halt. Numbers were swelled by support from unions and students. The mood was largely festive, but tension built up when the march pushed down Broadway towards Wall Street.

I think we need to try to take the focus of Obama. Any ideas how we can do that gang? <sarcasm intended>

I thought the focus was all on the Republican presidential candidates and their non-candidates. It's not? With Obama's approval rating and economy in the tank, if the focus is not on the GOP, at least among conservatives, that's not a good outlook for the Republican party. I don't know why conservatives would be paying any attention to Occupy-whatever if the demonstrations are inconsequential and when the GOP presidential race is heating up. If conservatives are focused on Occupy, then conservatives are off-track.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said Wednesday that when Americans find out what the Federal Reserve is up to it is “no wonder they are up on Wall Street raising Cain [pun?] because they know the system is biased against the average person."

Herman Cain, another challenger for the Republican nomination, said that he believed the ongoing Occupy Wall Street protests were "orchestrated" to help President Obama.

"I don’t have facts to back this up, but I happen to believe that these demonstrations are planned and orchestrated to distract from the failed policies of the Obama administration," Cain said.

"Wolfman? Are you pleased with the progress that labor has made under Obama's policies?"

Not really. He lives in the world of the American political class where big money buys almost everyone. I'm disappointed in his trade agreements and the fact that he has taken sooo much money from Wall Street. But I also know if not for the auto bailouts this area would be in a depression. The problem is the big money sloshing around our elected. Until there is some control here nothing will change and corporate shill entertainers and phoney think tanks will win every election by the uninformed voter who buys into this stuff.

This isn't a protest. It's a mob that thinks they can act with impunity because of some reason or another. Then when they threaten to occupy a museum where national treasures are displayed and that museum is forcefully defended, they cry "brutality".

Damn right they should have been pepper sprayed. Next time they can be tazered or tear-gassed. Fuck 'em. Peaceful protests sit outside...who cares? There's lots of room on the National Mall.

Wolfman and other are exerting a lot of effort to promote this as some type of valid expression. There was a lot of work done before this occurred in setting it up and organizing. Union tentacles and support are deeply aligned.

Can I ask everyone this...

Have these demonstrations made you more sympathetic to organized labor or less sympathetic?

Does this make you less supportive or more supportive of things like Senate Bill 5 in Ohio?

My perception is that these demonstrations are having an absolute negative affect for the people that are trying to build support for their cause and they are actually strengthening their opponents positions because of their foolishness.

But hey, this can't be true, because the same TeaOP screams that anyone they don't like at a Teabagger event is a "liberal plant" (e.g. anyone caught with a racist sign or making racist statements or otherwise smearing the "good name" of the TeaOP).

I read the koz and spectator articles and nowhere does it say the reporter was a leader or organizer of anything. Please point to another source if you can find information that he and his "tea-ops" or whatever you call them were the only ones charging into the museum.

Roughly one hundred protesters marched on the Air and Space Museum Saturday, following a planned assembly held the night before in Freedom Plaza. At that assembly,the "Action Committee" for the protest movement organized by October2011.com suggested storming the museum in order to state their opposition to American militarism, which they perceive as a root cause of the federal deficit.The marchers started out in the early afternoon, and after a roughly half-hour parade through the streets of D.C. they reached their target.

Sounds like the idea came from the protest group, not "tea-ops". And he got pepper-sprayed for his participation--as anyone participating in this activity, journalist or not, should have been:

After sneaking past the guard at the first entrance, I found myself trapped in a small entranceway outside the second interior door behind a muscle-bound left-wing fanatic and a 300-pound guard. The fanatic shoved the guard and the guard shoved back, hard, sending this comrade -- and, by domino effect, me -- sprawling against the wall. After squeezing myself out from under him, I sprinted toward the door. Then I got hit.

Both are grassroots populist movements with a common anger at bailed-out banks, but where does the resemblance end?http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/07/occupy-wall-street-tea-party
Quote:
At a glance, all popular risings look alike with their crowds, banners and noise. But look a little closer and they can be as different as the peoples and cultures that comprise a society. The Tea Party, under one name or another, has actually been part of American politics for a long time. It is a movement that yearns for the restoration of an imaginary past, when the world was simple, men were men, women were women, leaders were white males, when the church steeple reigned over little towns and, aside from vaudeville, minorities had no public presence. Consistently, the Tea Party sympathisers in American politics today are almost all white, and they are better-off and older than the general population. That is why they chant "Take it back! Take it back! Take it back!" at their rallies. And their politics of hazy nostalgia is also why they are eagerly supported by rightwing business leaders.

By contrast, the Occupy Wall Street people are mainly young, racially diverse, happily countercultural and, above all, eagerly inclusive. And contrary to early media reports, they are thoughtful and well-informed. Where Tea Partiers chanted confused slogans like "Get government's hands off my Medicare!", the Occupy Wall Street protesters issue well thought-out proclamations about a future defined by cooperation and a democracy freed from the clutches of economic oligarchy. And they invite Joseph Stiglitz to address their general assembly.

At a glance, all popular risings look alike with their crowds, banners and noise. But look a little closer and they can be as different as the peoples and cultures that comprise a society. The Tea Party, under one name or another, has actually been part of American politics for a long time. It is a movement that yearns for the restoration of an imaginary past, when the world was simple, men were men, women were women, leaders were white males, when the church steeple reigned over little towns and, aside from vaudeville, minorities had no public presence. Consistently, the Tea Party sympathisers in American politics today are almost all white, and they are better-off and older than the general population. That is why they chant "Take it back! Take it back! Take it back!" at their rallies. And their politics of hazy nostalgia is also why they are eagerly supported by rightwing business leaders.

By contrast, the Occupy Wall Street people are mainly young, racially diverse, happily countercultural and, above all, eagerly inclusive. And contrary to early media reports, they are thoughtful and well-informed. Where Tea Partiers chanted confused slogans like "Get government's hands off my Medicare!", the Occupy Wall Street protesters issue well thought-out proclamations about a future defined by cooperation and a democracy freed from the clutches of economic oligarchy. And they invite Joseph Stiglitz to address their general assembly.

There it is. I guess if an America-hating Socialist who is primarily known for encouraging (even through violent means) the uprising of the entitlement/welfare society says it, it must be true.

Funny thing though, if we go back to the Marxist Mother Duck's stereotype of "Tea Party sympathisers" she is, for the most part, describing herself; white, better-off and old. Correct me if I'm wrong wolfie, but doesn't that pretty much describe you as well (at least the old and white part)? Are your fellow loitering friends aware of your new label?

On the surface, I think the OWS crowd would like people to think they are inclusive because you can't purport to be the "99%" and then leave people out. That being said, their actual practice of inclusion could probably use some work.

"I read the koz and spectator articles and nowhere does it say the reporter was a leader or organizer of anything. Please point to another source if you can find information that he and his "tea-ops" or whatever you call them were the only ones charging into the museum."

The journalist's name is Patrick Howley, an assistant editor at the American Spectator.

Read his original story that he posted on Sat, Oct 8.

Hold on, you can't read his original story because his story was modified multiple times on Sun, Oct 9.

But as far as anyone knew I was part of this cause -- a cause that I had infiltrated the day before in order to mock and undermine in the pages of The American Spectator -- and I wasn't giving up before I had my story.

As the white-uniformed security guards hurried to physically block the entrances, only a select few -- myself included -- kept charging forward.

I was the only one who made it through the doors.

So I was surprised to find myself a fugitive Saturday afternoon, stumbling around aircraft displays ...

Minutes earlier, I had been among those blocking major D.C. roads chanting "We're unstoppable" -- and from beneath my unshaven left-wing alter ego, I worried that we might actually be.

But ... the lefties ... lack the nerve to confront authority.

... as far as I could tell I was the only one who got inside.

... the guards who sprayed me acted with more courage than I saw from any of the protesters.

It seems that Howley wanted the protesters to act violently. Howley got upset when the majority of protesters chose not to act violently. Howley considers violence to be courageous. Howley did not report on a story. He created a story to report by becoming the story.

Wasn’t the Boston Tea Party an act of violence and felony vandalism directed toward a massive multinational corporation that resulted in the destruction of said corporation’s property and shut down their ability to conduct business in several other ports as well? Sound like anti-capitalist swine to me…

What was the tea party then Wulf? The protestered didn't destroy the cargo of a rich multinational corporation and shut down the major ports to their cargo all while dressed up as native Americans to help hide their identities?

Lol actually it was a protest on a tea tax that was rescinded I think even before the event happened. But I dont think the faux indians knew that at the time, dont forget it took 2-3 weeks to get messages from england at the time.

It's interesting that the 'common lore' about the Boston Tea Party is the more accepted history rather than the facts, so it's no wonder that inaccurate comparisons are made.

Many of our nation's founders, including Washington and Franklin, thought the Boston Tea Party was an inappropriate action. There were calls afterward for the company to be made whole for the loss of their product.

The T-E-A in today's tea parties stands for 'Taxed Enough Already' ... while there are certainly similarities in the emotions and thoughts of the participants of both today's movement and the Boston Tea Party, today's tea party members are more like those who opposed the action of destroying a company's product than like those who dumped tea in the harbor.

Additionally, the Boston Tea Party participants weren't against the company, but against the tax that was being imposed upon the product by the government. This is why so many thought the action was wrong - it 'harmed' a company and didn't do anything about the source of the problem, which was the English Crown.

In fact, there are a lot of similarities among the Boston Tea Party action and today's Occupy groups who are targeting Wall Street rather than the people who write the rules that Wall Street follows.

1 - The bulk of today’s Tea Party most definitely associate themselves with the Boston Tea Party and their ideals, but to your point, they have no idea what the Tea Party was really about. Ie Wulf.

2 – Do you really think Wall Street is just “following the rules”? You somehow want us to think that the corporate power structure is something total different than the Washington power structure. They are in many cases one in the same. Basically Wall Street gets to write the rules it gets to follow. Yet you think of them as some victim of government.

SensorG - I almost added a disclaimer to my comment about Wall Street saying that it in no way was meant to condone everything Wall Street has done, as I expected you would go this route. :)

There are always bad apples - in any group, organization or industry. Individuals should be held accountable - which doesn't require the demonization of the entire group, organization or industry. I apply this consistently to all, including Wall Street, politicians, tea party groups and occupy groups.

But when a company reacts to a new law or regulation in a way that some expect but that politicians never seem to, that's the fault of the politicians - not the company.

For example, only: Bank of America, and a lot of other banks, decided to start charging customers for the use of a debit card after Dick Durbin added an amendment to limit what they could charge retailers for the use of the card. The way I see it, for this instance, the blame for the action of the banks should be laid at the feet of Dick Durbin - not the banks. Many of us predicted the banks would find a way to still have revenue, as they should. But somehow, the politicians who supported this particular amendment never thought that through. Certainly, this was an unintended consequence of Durbin's amendment...but shame on the politicians who didn't anticipate.

Some would see this as a bad move by the banks - and it may turn out to be if customers decide to stop using the banks that are now charging (and there are many), but it may not. The banks are taking a risk - and they should suffer the consequences if it was a bad decision and reap the rewards if it was a good one.

Just to remind everyone - I opposed (and still do) all the bailouts (banks, companies, etc...). That's not what our government should be doing.

SensorG - I almost added a disclaimer to my comment about Wall Street saying that it in no way was meant to condone everything Wall Street has done, as I expected you would go this route. :)

There are always bad apples - in any group, organization or industry. Individuals should be held accountable - which doesn't require the demonization of the entire group, organization or industry. I apply this consistently to all, including Wall Street, politicians, tea party groups and occupy groups.

But when a company reacts to a new law or regulation in a way that some expect but that politicians never seem to, that's the fault of the politicians - not the company.

For example, only: Bank of America, and a lot of other banks, decided to start charging customers for the use of a debit card after Dick Durbin added an amendment to limit what they could charge retailers for the use of the card. The way I see it, for this instance, the blame for the action of the banks should be laid at the feet of Dick Durbin - not the banks. Many of us predicted the banks would find a way to still have revenue, as they should. But somehow, the politicians who supported this particular amendment never thought that through. Certainly, this was an unintended consequence of Durbin's amendment...but shame on the politicians who didn't anticipate.

Some would see this as a bad move by the banks - and it may turn out to be if customers decide to stop using the banks that are now charging (and there are many), but it may not. The banks are taking a risk - and they should suffer the consequences if it was a bad decision and reap the rewards if it was a good one.

Just to remind everyone - I opposed (and still do) all the bailouts (banks, companies, etc...). That's not what our government should be doing.

And the cost savings the retailers were gonna have from not being charged twice as much for debit transactions was to "trickle down" onto us as reduced prices. Which is Teapublican Approved Reaganomics and you should be doing 10 "PRAISE REAGAN!"s in penance for doubting His Holy Economics, Mags. Tsk tsk.

And then the CEO of BofA came out and pronounced that as a Publicly Traded Company, BofA has a RIGHT to make a profit. You and your Teapublican friends should have smacked the fuck out of him because there is no RIGHT to make a profit (implying the GOVERNMENT will bend over backwards to make sure the balance sheet is in the black). There is a right to TRY to make a profit, however. You know, it's kinda how when some unemployed person says "I have a right to a job!" and you Teabaggers go "No you don't, you dirty pinko commie socialist liberal, nobody is required to hire you, you merely have the right to TRY to get a job!"

No conservative ever thought that retailers would pass along their supposed 'savings' to customers - that was Durbin's plan and we can see how that worked out since it was pretty illogical to begin with.

The so-called 'trickle-down' concept is certainly not a result of government mandating how much a company can charge for a particular service - I'd go so far as to say that's a gross distortion of the concept.

I don't believe a company has a 'right' to make a profit any more than I believe a person has a 'right' to a job.

Rights are inherent - not granted by government - and rights require others to do nothing except to not inhibit the exercise of them. That's why I believe there is no 'right' to health care - it requires someone else (a doctor or health care provider of some sort) to 'give' something to another, namely, the experience and skills learned in order to become such a provider. There is no 'right' to benefit from the fruits of another's labor.

Companies are formed in order to make profits - that is goal and function. They do so by providing a product or service that others are willing to pay for. If they make money in their endeavor, they grow and continue. If they don't, they fail.

BofA wouldn't exist today without the American tax payer having bailed them out. Durbin’s reform is intended to help small retailers that are forced to pay excessive fees every time a consumer shops at their store. Bank of America could easily choose not to overburden their customers with an unnecessary fee. But, as Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan said himself, the main reason behind the fee is to simply make money. Now banks make 100% profit on the transactions and not 400%.

Sensor - I agree with you about the bailout for BoA...don't think any company should be bailed out.

But they're not the only bank affected, nor the only bank to decide to begin charging customers for the debit cards - but they were the only one Durbin singled out on the floor of Congress for doing so. That's wrong.

I don't think it is a complete picture to look only at the debit card transactions. Just like many companies, a bank offers multiple services or products. What they charge on one may allow them to charge less on others. How, for example, does a bank cover the costs of checking accounts that they offer for free? There are, obviously, costs associated with this service that have to be covered one way or the other.

There's no way the politicians in D.C. have enough knowledge of this company - or any others - to determine whether or not a fee or cost for a service or product is 'too much' or 'not enough.' But their arrogance at thinking they do is what gives us such laws and regulations that result in such unintended consequences as the new debit card fee.

Companies exist to make money. I have no problem with that.

We'll probably agree on much of this but diverge when it comes to the solution. I believe the solution to such things is less government interference in the market (letting consumers decide) while you'll probably think this means there is a need for more government regulation to address the unintended consequences.

Consumers only decide what is actually in their best interest when commercial speech is not a factor. Once the consumer wades through a mess of advertising, it is likely he or she is at a different position than if they would have decided on their own. This is the whole principle behind marketing; that you can change views and thus direct cash.

Companies are beholden to the government that permits them to exist with limited liabilities. The government is beholden to the people. When we value commercial speech as much as the speech of an individual, the belief that the average consumer chooses what is best for them dies and the people are in essence subject to those with the most money to do the talking.

brainswell - would you say that the internet and social media give voice to the individual, perhaps making the individual's voice even more powerful (in the long run) in influence than advertisements and marketing?

It seems to me that such vehicles for speech (especially social media which is a private-sector creation) are beginning to serve as equalizers.

Yes. The internet and social media do a lot to empower individuals, but corporate America learned pretty quick how to exploit the internet to its own advantage. Web sites are (properly) treated like private property, allowing a single opinion to be heard when desired. Specific outlets tied to a particular causes are excellent for giving a voice to the minority, but they very rarely have the resources to pollute the internet with ads like the big boys.

I think it is vitally important for the internet to remain neutral with respect to traffic and to keep government censorship away from the internet almost entirely.

DBW...didn't we establish that the government pretty much works for corporations now...try to keep up. Obama isn't much different, can't get elected president without raising near $1 billion dollars...

Of course but we are giving them a pass by taking the spotlight off their failure (R&D). There is a ton of dirty money flowing into DC that is shaping our policies, but it's only because there is a bunch of greedy assholes taking it.

Money only goes there because the fools we elect are going to take it! Do not let the pressure of the users just because we finally got off our ass about doing something about the dealers. Just like Obama was going to "get those evil rich people" when 7 of his top 10 donors were banks and oil companies. We can't take our foot of the pedal and pretend it's all Wall Street's fault, that plays right into the corrupt officials hands.

We'll never be able to elect politicians that don't take the money. It's not possible to get elected without it. Take the corporate money out first and then you'll get better politicians.

(sound of laundry machine from Mags's direction)

You pretty much have to be one of the 1%, or pretty far up the percent at least, in order to get elected as anything higher than city council/mayor/township trustee/sheriff, provided you're not talking about "big city" council/mayor (e.g. Toledo-sized). Once you get much beyond something the size of Perrysburg/Maumee/Sylvania, you can't both have a full-time job AND campaign and/or serve in the elective office, there's too much work to be done. If you don't have the kind of money to be able to do nothing but spend your time campaigning, then you're going to lose, or be beholden to one of the two parties to run your campaign for you (which is part of the problem).

So then we are stuck with rich idiots like Rich Iott who have no need of a real job as the candidate pool. Scions of the rich families, many of which previously were in political office. And you occasionally get a Joe the Plumber who made a name for themselves for having a big mouth.

It's not just the corporate money, it's who you know and who you blow and how much money you already got that determine who is even able to run.

Tomorrow, at 7 AM the New York Police Department will attempt to clear out Zuccotti Park, one-third of the park at a time, so that crews can come in and clean the park. The NYPD has announced thatsleeping bags and tarps will no longer be allowed in the park once the cleaning is done.The protesters view the NYPD announcement as an eviction notice...

Seriously--great television. You know every network camera in New York City is going to be on, focused and recording the events tomorrow. Woo hoo...

... last night Mayor Bloomberg and the NYPD notified Occupy Wall Street participants about plans to “clean the park”—the site of the Wall Street protests—tomorrow starting at 7am. "Cleaning" was used as a pretext to shut down “Bloombergville” a few months back, and to shut down peaceful occupations elsewhere. Join us at 6AM FRIDAY for non-violent eviction defense. We know where the real dirt is: on Wall Street. Billionaire Bloomberg is beholden to bankers. We won't allow Bloomberg and the NYPD to foreclose our occupation.

Occupy Wall Street protesters are effectively facing eviction from Zuccotti Park on Friday morning. Brookfield properties, which owns the park, has said it will clean the area tomorrow.

Brookfield has said cleaning will begin at 7am and will take approximately 12 hours. NYPD said there will be a police presence at the park to facilitate the cleaning effort.

Just spoke to NYPD. They say protesters will not be completely cleared from Zuccotti Park, it will be cleaned in thirds, and protesters allowed to be present while cleaning takes place. However a police spokesman confirmed that protesters would not be allowed to keep sleeping equipment in the park.

#OWS VICTORY: The people have prevailed, gear up for global day of action http://occupywallst.org/
People power triumphs over Wall Street’s bid to end the protests mayor bloomberg and Brookfield Inc. back down on eviction world prepares for day of action Saturday October 15 in 950+ cities in 82 countries. We Are Winning!

NEW YORK, NY – Over 3,000 people gathered at Liberty Plaza in the pre-dawn hours this morning to defend the peaceful Occupation near Wall Street. The crowd cheered at the news that multinational real estate firm Brookfield Properties will postpone its so-called “cleanup” of the park and that Mayor Bloomberg has told the NYPD to stand down on orders to remove protesters. On the eve of the October 15 global day of action against Wall Street greed, this development has emboldened the movement and sent a clear message that the power of the people has prevailed against Wall Street.

“We are winning and Wall Street is afraid,” said Kira Moyer-Sims, a protester from Portland, Oregon. “This movement is gaining momentum and is too big to fail.” (MORE) http://occupywallst.org/

On October 15th people from all over the world will take to the streets and squares.

From America to Asia, from Africa to Europe, people are rising up to claim their rights and demand a true democracy. Now it is time for all of us to join in a global non violent protest.

The ruling powers work for the benefit of just a few, ignoring the will of the vast majority and the human and environmental price we all have to pay. This intolerable situation must end.

United in one voice, we will let politicians, and the financial elites they serve, know it is up to us, the people, to decide our future. We are not goods in the hands of politicians and bankers who do not represent us.

On October 15th, we will meet on the streets to initiate the global change we want. We will peacefully demonstrate, talk and organize until we make it happen.

It’s time for us to unite. It’s time for them to listen.
People of the world, rise up on October 15th!

Wolf, as orgasmic as you feel about these socialist movements, you should try reading facts and you will find for the most part what most of them want are free handouts, still wonder who's going to pay for what they are asking for. FREE college education? maybe the professors will work for free, why don't you ask them?

Linecrosser more right wing propaganda drivel. This is NOT a socialist movement its a populist movement. I and others are NOT advocating the demise of Wall Street. We want the Wall Street money taken out of our political process. We want the return of our government to the people.

The government will return to the people when the people return to the voting booth. Last primary in Toledo drew 5%, and less than 20% in a general election is the reason the government is non-responsive.

The government will return to the people when the people return to the voting booth. Last primary in Toledo drew 5%, and less than 20% in a general election is the reason the government is non-responsive.

("I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how.") -- Josef Stalin

Well, seeing as how your TeaOP boys scream about how any sort of Get Out The Vote program is voter fraud and you now have Voter ID laws to ensure that the secret ballot is toast and that voters are intimidated into not voting, on top of the non-verifiable, easily hackable electronic machines...

Secret ballot is toast? like the unions wanted? No one want to know how you voted, only that its really you that's voting and only once. heck if you dont care about knowing who is voting maybe I should come down from Michigan and vote in your elections.

BALLOT PETITION. Like the Issue 2 petition. As in "sign your name here to get X on the ballot".

That is NOT the same as a ballot box, and there are plenty enough morons out there on either side who are just fine with signing "Alfred E Neuman" or whatever they feel like despite it being a felony, let alone signature gatheres on both sides who are stupid and/or criminal enough to forge.

But it's still not the same as going into a polling place, where you at the very least HAVE TO BE REGISTERED TO VOTE... but now not only do you have to show residency to BE REGISTERED, you have to show ID to VOTE too. State ID. Which costs MONEY PAID TO THE STATE. Which is a POLL TAX when one must pay the government to vote. But hey let's just disenfranchise more American citizens, it's okay when you and the Teapublicans do it.

Batchelder said he was "a little bit embarrassed" by the racial accusations. "I don't think it's fair in any way, shape or form," he said. "We don't need people standing up on the floor of the House and acting like everything that is going on is racist -- particularly not from the party that gave fewer votes to the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Republicans did."

Democrats also saw political motivations in the Republican-backed legislation because they think it could cut into votes from typical Democratic constituencies. However, Batchelder said there was "none of that whatsoever" in response.

Under the bill, those who declare "indigence" will be able to get the state ID fee waived. The bill would also allow expired state IDs to be used for voting, Republicans said.

Democrats say that the bill could cost up to $20 million to implement once litigation, poll-worker training, voter education and costs for free IDs for the indigent are factored in.

However, Batchelder said any new poll worker training or voter education needed could just be rolled into the current training and forms. And Republicans cited a fiscal note from the non-partisan Legislative Service Commission predicted "minimal" costs to the state for free Ids for the indigent. Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted has not taken a position on the bill, but did not include the photo ID requirement in his proposed elections reform package rolled out recently.